User talk:Ulysses elias

Roman Polanski edits
I agree with the comments made about your edits. You are welcome to edit but giving personal commentary intermixed with opinions is not welcome, as you can see from the above guidelines. Your edits should be reverted. However, I am impressed by the complexity and skill in your earliest contributions to Wikipedia, and ask whether you are a new editor or an experienced one. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dane Lovett, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 08:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christine Morrow


The article Christine Morrow has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Enfcer (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christine Morrow


The article Christine Morrow has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 13:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Hello. I saw your edits to Whiteley's article and reverted them. While it's nice to see actual edit summaries when removing content, removing 70% of a well-sourced article's content is basically blanking and certainly warrants talk page consensus beforehand. If you feel certain content clearly violates policies or if certain sources are dubious, feel free to start a new section here for discussion.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 100 Greatest Britons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations go in the article, not the edit summary
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Roman Polanski. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources for edits to race article?
Hi, Ulysses, do you have any sources for the edits you just did (which, alas, I just reverted) to the lede of the article Race (human classification)? I ask, because that article is very controversial, and we are trying to be more collaborative there in improving the article by turning to more reliable sources. If you have sources in mind for improving the article, could you please let editors know about them on the article talk page? If you like, you may want to have a look at a source list compiled to gather good sources for articles on that topic and related topics. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Courtney Stodden
Hi, Ulysses. Thanks for working to improving the Courtney Stodden article with your recent edit. However, I have reverted the edit, because, while that statement is true, including it appears to add a point-of-view commentary or argumentation to the article in Wikipedia's voice, which violates the site's Neutrality policy. While it would be perfectly acceptable to mention if critics or analysts of the Stodden-Hutchison marriage made that comparison (so long as it were accompanied by an inline citation of a reliable source, per WP:V), adding it without such a citation is not permitted. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Rotherham
I've reverted your changes at Rotherham sex grooming case simply because they confused two separate (but related and overlapping) issues. The 2010 case - the subject of the original article - concerned five men only. The 2014 report - this - covered a much wider issue, of activities by many more men over a much longer period. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the two articles should be merged, at which I'd welcome your views, but for the moment they need to be kept separate as they essentially cover two separate (but related and overlapping) issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Australian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Segway PT, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burford Priory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Murdoch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Just thought I would stop by and thank you for this edit. Many years ago, I brought that article up to "good article" status, and the subject of that particular paragraph was something that seemed to come up in just about every interview for an extended period, so I was hard-pressed not to include it. (I suspect it was considered part of Blunt's "charm".) I agree with you that, especially after all these years, it's little more than a curiosity. Thanks for taking the time to make the change. Risker (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ivanka Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)